arXiv:2011.12029v1 [math.FA] 24 Nov 2020
Normal trace for vector fields of bounded mean
oscillation
Yoshikazu Giga and Zhongyang Gu
Abstract
We introduce various spaces of vector fields of bounded mean oscillation (BM O) defined in a domain so that normal trace on the boundary is bounded when its divergence is well controlled. The behavior of “normal” component and “tangential” component may be dif-ferent for ourBM Ovector fields. As a result zero extension of the normal component stays inBM Oalthough such property may not hold for tangential components.
Keywords: BM O, normal trace, duality, Jones’ extension, Triebel-Lizorkin space.
1
Introduction
One of basic questions on vector fields defined on a domain Ω in Rn is whether the normal trace is well controlled without estimating all partial derivatives when the divergence is well controlled. Such a type of estimates is well known when a vector field isLp (1< p <∞) orL∞. Here are examples. Let Ω be a bounded domain with smooth boundary Γ. Let n denotes its exterior unit normal vector field on Γ. For simplicity we assume that a vector field v satisfies divv= 0. Then there is a constant C independent of v such that
kv·nkW−1/p,p(Γ)≤CkvkLp(Ω) (1) {{N1N1}}
kv·nkL∞(Γ)≤CkvkL∞(Ω). (2) {{N2N2}}
Here Ws,p denotes the Sobolev space which is actually a Besov space Bp,ps for non-integer s. The first estimate is a key to establish the Helmholtz decomposition of an Lp vector field; see e.g. [FM]. The second estimate is important to study for example total variation flow; see e.g. [ACM, Appendix C1]. These estimates (1), (2) hold for various domains including the case that Ω is a half spaceRn+ i.e.,
However, it turns out that the normal trace of divergence free BM O vector fields may not be bounded. Indeed, consider
v= (v1, v2), v1(x) =v2(x) = log|x1−x2|. x= (x1, x2)∈R2.
This vector field is inBM O(R2) and it is divergence free in distribution sence. Indeed,
Z R2 v· ∇ϕ dx= 1 2 Z R2 log|ζ| (∂ζ−∂ζ) ˜ϕ+ (∂η +∂η) ˜ϕdζdη = 0, ζ =x1−x2, η=x1+x2
for all compactly supported smooth function ϕ, i.e., ϕ ∈ Cc∞(R2). Here, ˜ϕ(ζ, η) = ϕ (ζ +
η)/2,(η−ζ)/2. However, if we consider Ω =R+2 and Γ ={x2 = 0}, then v·n =−v2 on Γ is
clearly unbounded. This example indicates that we need some control near the boundary. Such a control is introduced in [BG], [BGS], [BGMST], [BGST]. More precisely, for f ∈ L1loc(Ω),
ν ∈(0,∞] they introduced a seminorm
[f]bν := sup ( r−n Z Ω∩Br(x) |f(y)|dy x∈Γ, 0< r < ν ) ,
whereBr(x) denotes the closed ball of radiusr centered at x. Forµ∈(0,∞] they define
[f]BM Oµ := sup ( 1 |Br(x)| Z Br(x) f−fBr(x) dy Br(x)⊂Ω, r < µ ) , where fB = 1 |B| Z B
f(y)dy, the average over B; here |B| denotes the Lebesgue measure of B. The BM O type space BM Oµ,νb introduced in these papers is the space of f ∈ L1
loc(Ω) having
finite
kfkBM Oµ,ν
b := [f]BM Oµ+ [f]bν.
This space is very convenient to study the Stokes semigroup in [BG], [BGS], [BGMST], [BGST] as well as the heat semigroup [BGST]. One of our main results (Theorem 25) yields
kv·nkL∞(Γ)≤CkvkBM Obµ,ν (3) {{N3N3}}
for any µ, ν ∈(0,∞] for any uniformly C1+β domain.
However, for applications, especially to establish the Helmholtz decomposionBM Oµ,νb norm for all components in too strong so we would like to estimate by a weaker norm. We only use
bν seminorm for normal component of a vector field v. To decompose the vector field letd
be the distance of x∈Ω from the boundary Γ, i.e.,
dΩ(x) := inf|x−y|
y∈Γ .
If Ω is uniformlyC2, thendΩ isC2 in aδ-tubular neighborhood Γδ of Γ for someδ < R∗, where
R∗ is the reach of Γ [GT, Chapter 14, Appendix], [KP, §4.4]; here Γδ:=x∈Ω
dΩ(x)< δ .
Instead of (3), our main results (Theorem 21, 22) together with Theorem 9 read:
kv·nkL∞(Γ)≤C [v]BM Oµ+ [∇dΩ·v]bν (4) {{MTBMTB}} forν ≤δ,µ∈(0,∞] provided that Ω is a bounded C2+β domain withβ ∈(0,1). The quantity
∇dΩ·v is a kind of normal component.
Our main strategy is to use the formula
Z Γ (v·n)ψ dHn−1= Z Ω (divv)ρ dx− Z Ω v· ∇ϕ dx
for any ϕ∈ Cc∞(Ω) with ϕ|Γ =ψ, where dHn−1 denotes the surface element. This formula is
obtained by integration by parts. If divv= 0, then it reads
Z Γ (v·n)ψ dHn−1 =− Z Ω v· ∇ϕ dx. (5) {{SINTSINT}}
Our estimate (4) follows from localization, flattening the boundary and duality argument. To get the flavor we explain the case when Ω is the half space Rn+. For ψ∈L1(Γ) it is known that there is ϕ∈ F1
1,2(Rn) such that its trace to the boundary equals to ψ; see e.g. [Tr92, Section
4.4.3]. Here F1
1,2 denotes the Triebel-Lizorkin space which means that ∇ϕ ∈ h1, a localized
Hardy space. We may assume that ϕ is even in xn. We extend v = (v′, vn) even in xn for
tangential part v′ and odd in xn for the normal part vn = ∇dΩ ·v. Although extended v′ is
still inBM O∞(Rn), the extendedvnmay not be inBM O∞(Rn) unless we assume [vn]bν <∞.
Here we invoke [∇dΩ·v]bν <∞. By these extensions our (5) yields
Z Γ (v·n)ψ dHn−1=−1 2 Z Rn v· ∇ϕ dx, (6) {{KIDKID}}
wherev denotes the extended vector field. We applyh1-bmo duality [Sa, Theorem 3.22] for (6)
to get Z (v·n)ψ dHn−1 ≤CkvkbmokϕkF1 ,
wherebmo=BM O∩L1ul a localizedBM O space. HereL1uldenotes a uniformly localL1 space; see Section 2 for details. SincekϕkF1
1,2 ≤CkψkL1, this implies kv·nkL∞(Γ) ≤Ckvkbmo(Rn) (7) {{MTHMTH}} ≤C[v]BM O∞(Ω)+ [v]L1 ul(Ω)+ [∇dΩ·v]b∞ . (8)
Here and hereafter C denotes a constant depends only on space dimension and its numerical value may be different line by line.
In the case of a curved domain we need localization and flattening procedure by using normal (principal) coordinates. The localized space bmoµδ =BM Oµ∩L1
ul(Γδ) is convenient for
this purpose. Again we have to handle normal component ∇dΩ·v separately. If the domain
has a compact boundary, we are able to removeL1
ulterm in (7) and we deduce the estimate (4).
Note that in this trace estimate only the behavior ofvnear Γ is important so one may use finite exponents in BM Oµ andbν.
As a byproduct we notice the extension problem of BM O functions. In general, zero ex-tension of v∈BM Oµ(Ω) may not belong to BM Oµ(Rn) but if v is in BM Oµ,νb , as noticed in [BGST], its zero extension belongs to BM Oµ(Rn) for ν ≥2µ. We also note that it is possible
to extend general bmoµδ(Ω) to BM Oµ whose support is near Ω. We develop such a theory to explain the role of bν.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we introduce several localized BM O spaces and compared these spaces. Some of them are discussed in [BGST]. We introduce a new space
vbmoµ,νδ which requires that the bν seminorm of the normal component is bounded in (bmoµδ)n. A key observation is that if the boundary of the domain is compact, i.e., either a bounded or an exterior domain, the requirement inL1
ul(Γδ) is redudent in the definition of vbmo
µ,ν
δ . In Section
3 we discuss extension problem as well as localization problem. In Section 4 we shall prove our main results. In Appendix we discuss coordinate change of vector fields by normal coordinates for the reader’s convenience.
2
Spaces
In this section we fix notation of important function spaces. Let L1ul(Rn) be a uniformly L1
space, i.e., for a fixedr0>0
L1ul(Rn) := ( f ∈L1loc(Rn) kfkL1 ul := supx ∈Rn Z Br0(x) f(y)dy <∞ ) .
The space is independent of the choice of r0. For a domain Ω the space L1ul is the space of all
L1loc functions f in Ω whose zero extension belongs toL1ul(Rn). In other words
L1ul(Ω) := ( f ∈L1loc(Ω) kfkL1 ul(Ω):= supx ∈Rn Z Br0(x)∩Ω f(y)dy <∞ ) . As in [BG] we set BM Oµ(Ω) := f ∈L1loc(Ω) [f]BM Oµ<∞ . Forδ ∈(0,∞] we set bmoµδ(Ω) :=BM Oµ(Ω)∩L1ul(Γδ) = f ∈BM Oµ(Ω)restriction off on Γδ is inL1ul(Γδ) .
This is a Banach space equipped with the norm
kfkbmoµ
δ := [f]BM Oµ(Ω)+ [f]Γδ, [f]Γδ :=kfkL1ul(Γδ),
where the restriction off on Γδ is still denoted by f. If there is no boundary we set bmo(Rn) :=BM O∞(Rn)∩L1ul(Rn)
which is a local BM O space and it agrees with the Triebel-Lizorkin spaceF∞0,2; see e.g, [Tr92, Section 1.7.1], [Sa, Theorem 3.26].
For vector-valued function spaces we still write BM Oµ instead of (BM Oµ)n. For example
for vector field v byv∈bmoµδ(Ω) we mean that
v = (v1, . . . , vn), vi ∈bmoµδ(Ω), 1≤i≤n.
We next introduce the space of vector fields whose normal component has finite bν of the form vbmoµ,νδ (Ω) :=v∈bmoµδ(Ω)[∇dΩ·v]bν <∞
forν ∈(0,∞]. This space is a Banach space equipped with the norm
kvkvbmoµ,ν
δ :=kvkbmo µ
δ + [∇dΩ·v]bν.
Similarly, we introduce another space
equipped with a seminorm
[v]vBM Oµ,ν := [v]BM Oµ+ [∇dΩ·v]bν.
Of course, this is strictly larger than the Banach space
BM Oµ,νb (Ω) :=v∈BM Oµ(Ω)[v]bν <∞
equipped with the norm
kvkBM Oµ,ν
b := [v]BM O
µ+ [v]bν
introduced essentially in [BG]. Indeed, in the case when Ω is the half space Rn+
vBM Oµ,ν(Rn+) = BM Oµ(Rn+)n−1×BM Obµ,ν(Rn+), (9) {{DCDC}} where in the right-hand side the each space denotes the space of scalar functions not of vector fields. This shows thatvBM Oµ,ν(Rn+) is strictly larger thanBM Oµ,νb (Rn+) for n≥2.
Although there are many exponents, the spaces may be the same for different exponents. By definition for 0< µ1 ≤µ2 ≤ ∞, 0< ν1≤ν2 ≤ ∞, 0< δ1 ≤δ2 ≤ ∞,
[f]BM Oµ1 ≤[f]BM Oµ2, [f]bν1 ≤[f]bν2, [f]Γδ1 ≤[f]Γδ2. Proposition 1. Let Ω be an arbitrary domain inRn.
(i) Let 0 < µ1 < µ2 < ∞. Then seminorms [·]BM Oµ1 and [·]BM Oµ2 are equivalent. If Ω is bounded, one may take µ2 =∞.
(ii) Let 0 < δ1 < δ2 <∞ and µ∈(0,∞]. Then there exists a constant C >0 depending only
on n, µ, δ1, δ2 and Ω such that
[f]Γδ2 ≤C [f]BM Oµ+ [f]Γ δ1 .
In particular, the normsk · kbmoµ
δ1 andk · kbmo µ
δ2 are equivalent. IfΩ is bounded, one may take δ2=∞.
Proof. (i) This is [BGST, Theorem 4] which follows from [BGST, Theorem 3].
(ii) Since the space L1ul(Γδ) is independent of the radius r0 in its definition, without loss of
n >1. Letkbe the smallest integer such that 2−k < √δ1 n and x∈R n. Notice that Z Br0(x)∩Γδ2 |f|dy= Z Br0(x)∩Γδ1 |f|dy+ Z Br0(x)∩(Γδ2\Γδ1) |f|dy, we can estimate kfkL1(Br
0(x)∩Γδ1) directly by [f]Γδ1. Assume that Γδ2 \Γδ1 6=∅. Let Dk(x) be
the set of dyadic cubes of side length 2−k that intersect withBr0(x)∩(Γδ2\Γδ1). For a dyadic
cube Qj ∈Dk(x), we define Bj to be the ball which has radius
√
n
2 ·2−k and shares the same
center with Qj. Let Ck(x) :={Bj|Qj ∈Dk(x)} and Σ :={x∈Ω|dΩ(x) =δ1}.
ForQj ∈Dk(x) that intersects Σ, we seek to estimatekfkL1(Bj). Letcj be a point on Σ∩Qj,
we have that Bδ1(cj) ⊂ Ω. Indeed as otherwise, there exists z ∈ Bδ1(cj)∩Ωc. Then the line
segment joiningcj and zmust intersect Γ at some point, say z∗. Then|z∗−cj| ≤ |z−cj|< δ1.
This contradicts the fact thatdΩ(cj) =δ1. For y∈Bj,|y−cj|<√n·ℓ(Qj) =√n·2−k < δ1. So
Bj ⊂Bδ1(cj). Let dj ∈Γ be a point such that |cj−dj|=δ1, then on the line segment joining
cj and dj, we can find a point oj such that |oj −dj|=
√
n
2 ·2−k. For y∈B√n 2 ·2−k
(oj), we have
that |dΩ(y)−dΩ(oj)| ≤ |y−oj|. Hence dΩ(y)≤dΩ(oj) +|y−oj|<√n·2−k< δ1. This means
thatB√n 2 ·2−k (oj)⊂Γδ1. Moreover, |cj −y| ≤ |cj−oj|+|oj−y| ≤δ1− √ n 2 ·2 −k+√n 2 ·2 −k=δ 1. ThusB√n 2 ·2−k (oj)⊂Bδ1(cj). Denote B√n 2 ·2−k (oj) byBj∗. We have that Z Bj |f|dy ≤ Z Bδ1(cj) |f−fBδ 1(cj)|dy+ Z Bδ1(cj) |fBδ 1(cj)−fB∗j|dy+ Z Bδ1(cj) |fB∗ j|dy. Notice that Z Bδ1(cj) |f −fBδ1(cj)|dy ≤ Cn·δ n 1 ·[f]BM Oµ, Z Bδ1(cj) |fBδ 1(cj)−fB∗j|dy ≤ |Bδ1(cj)| 2 |B∗ j| ·[f]BM Oµ, Z Bδ1(cj) |fB∗ j|dy ≤ |Bδ1(cj)| |Bj∗| ·[f]δ1. Since|Bδ1(cj)|=Cn·δ1nand | Bδ1(cj)| |B∗ j| = Cn·δn1 (√2n·2−k)n ≤ Cn·δ1n (δ1 4)n =Cn,kfkL1(B j)is therefore controlled by Cδ1,n· [f]BM Oµ+ [f]Γδ 1 .
Next we consider Q′j ∈ Dk(x) that does not intersect Σ. Suppose that Qj ∈ Dk(x) has
asBji ⊂Bj, Z B′ j |f|dy ≤ Z B′ j |f−fB′ j|dy+ Z B′ j |fB′ j−fB j i|dy+ Z B′ j |fBj i|dy ≤ |Bj′| ·[f]BM Oµ+ | Bj′|2 |Bji| ·[f]BM Oµ+ |Bj′| |Bij|· Z Bj |f|dy. Therefore ifkfkL1(B j) is controlled byCδ1,n· [f]BM Oµ+ [f]Γδ 1 ,kfkL1(B′ j) is also controlled by Cδ1,n· [f]BM Oµ+ [f]Γδ 1 .
SinceBr0(x)∩(Γδ2\Γδ1) is connected, we can estimatekfkL1(Bj) for everyQj ∈Dk(x) where
Bj is the smallest ball that contains Qj. For each Qj ∈Dk(x), there exists y∈Qj∩Br0(x), so
for anyz∈Bj,|z−x| ≤ |z−y|+|y−x|<√n·2−k+r0 < r0+δ1. Thus S
Qj∈Dk(x)
Bj ⊂Br0+δ1(x).
LetN(Dk(x)) be the number of cubes in Dk(x), we have that N(Dk(x))≤ | Br0+δ1(x)| 2−kn ≤Cn· r0+δ1 δ1 n . Therefore, Z Br0(x)∩(Γδ2\Γδ1) |f|dy ≤ X Bj∈Cr0(x) Z Bj |f|dy ≤ N(Dk(x))·Cδ1,n· [f]BM Oµ+ [f]Γ δ1 ≤ Cn,δ1,r0· [f]BM Oµ+ [f]Γδ 1 .
For the case where the dimensionn= 1, we letkto be the smallest integer such that 2−k < δ1
2
and Dk to be the set of dyadic cubes of side length 2−k that intersects Γδ2\Γδ1. Notice that the
region Γδ2\Γδ1 is indeed a union of intervals. Without loss of generality, we can assume Ω to be
(0,∞) and take µ=∞by part (i) of this proposition. Thus in this case Γδ2\Γδ1 = (δ1, δ2). For
Q0 ∈Dk such thatδ1 ∈Q0, Z Q0 |f|dy ≤ Z 2Q0 |f|dy ≤ Z 2Q0 |f−f2Q0|dy+ Z 2Q0 |f2Q0 −fQ∗0|dy+ Z 2Q0 |fQ∗ 0|dy ≤C·[f]BM O∞+ [f]Γδ1 , whereQ∗0 = 2Q0\(Q0∪[δ1,∞)) andℓ(Q∗0) = 12ℓ(Q0) = 2−(k+1).
We then put an ordering on the elements of Dk in the following way. For j ∈N, suppose
Qj has a touching edge withQj−1. ForQj ∈Dk, similarly we have that Z Qj |f|dy ≤ Z 2Qj |f|dy≤ Z 2Qj |f−f2Qj|dy+ Z 2Qj |f2Qj−fQ∗j|dy+ Z 2Qj |fQ∗ j|dy ≤C·[f]BM O∞+ [f]Γδ1 , whereQ∗j = 2Qj−1∩2Qj and ℓ(Q∗j) =ℓ(Qj) = 2−k.
Let N(Dk) be the number of elements ofDk, we have that N(Dk)≤ δ2−δ1 2−k + 2≤ 4(δ2−δ1) δ1 + 2 and therefore Z Γδ2\Γδ1 |f|dy≤Cδ2,δ1 · [f]BM Oµ+ [f]Γδ 1 .
The proof is now complete. ✷
By this observation when we discuss the spacebmoµδ there are only four types of spaces
bmoµδ, bmo∞δ , bmoµ∞, bmo∞∞
for finite µ, δ > 0. If Ω is bounded, it is clear that these four spaces agree with each other. However, if Ω is unbounded, there four spaces may be different because they requires different growth at infinity. Indeed, if Ω = (0,∞)
bmo∞∞(bmo∞δ
since log(x+ 1) ∈ bmo∞δ while it does not belong to bmo∞∞. Moreover, since x ∈ bmoµδ but it does not belong to neither bmoµ∞ norbmo∞
δ , we see that
bmo∞δ (bmoµδ, bmoµ∞(bmoµδ.
It is possible to prove that bmo∞∞ = bmoµ∞. Indeed as bmo∞∞(Ω) ⊂ bmoµ∞(Ω) is simply by the definition of the BM O seminorm. It is sufficient to show the contrary, i.e. [f]BM O∞ ≤
C·([f]BM Oµ + [f]Γ
∞). Without loss of generality, in defining the seminorm [·]L1ul(Γ∞), we set
the radius of the ball to be √2n. ForBr(x)⊂Ω withr < µ,
1
|Br(x)|
Z
Br(x)
ForBr(x)⊂Ω withr≥µ, ifr ≤ √ n 2 , then 1 |Br(x)| Z Br(x) |f −fBr(x)|dy ≤ 2 |Br(x)| Z B√n 2 (x)∩Ω| f|dy ≤Cµ,n·[f]Γ∞.
If r > √2n,Br(x) is contained in the cube Qr with center x and side length 2([r] + 1), here [r]
is the largest integer less than or equal to r. By dividing each side length of Qr equally into
2([r] + 1) parts, we can divide the cubeQr into (2[r] + 2)n subcubes of side length 1. LetSQr
be the set of these (2[r] + 2)n subcubes of Qr. For Qir ∈ SQr, let B
i
r be the smallest ball that
contains Qi
r. LetCQr :={Bri |Qir ∈SQr}. We have that
Z Br(x) |f|dy ≤ (2[r]+2)n X i=1 Z Bi r∩Ω |f|dy≤(2[r] + 2)n·[f]Γ∞. Since r≥µ, 1 |Br(x)| Z Br(x) |f−fBr(x)|dy≤ 2 |Br(x)| Z Br(x) |f|dy ≤Cµ,n·[f]Γ∞.
Thereforebmo∞∞=bmoµ∞ and thus bmoµ∞(bmo∞µ. We summarize these equivalences.
Theorem 2. Let Ω be an arbitrary domain inRn. Then
bmo∞∞(Ω) =bmoµ∞(Ω)⊂bmo∞δ (Ω)⊂bmoµδ(Ω)
for finite δ, µ >0. The inclusions can be strict when Ω is unbounded. If Ω is bounded, all four spaces are the same.
As a simple application of Proposition 1, we conclude that the space BM Obµ,ν is included in
bmoµν since [f]ν ≤c[f]bν (ν <∞) withc >0 depending onν.
Theorem 3. Let Ω be an arbitrary domain inRn. For µ∈(0,∞] the inclusion
BM Oµ,νb (Ω)⊂bmoµν(Ω)
holds for ν ∈(0,∞).
Since bν-seminorm controls boundary growth stronger than L1 sense, this inclusion is in general strict even when Ω is bounded. Here is a simple example when Ω = (0,1). The bν -seminorm off(x) = logx is infinite butkfkL1(Ω) is finite.
Remark 4. As proved in [BGST, Theorem 9], if Ω is a bounded Lipschitz domain, the space
BM Obµ,ν (µ, ν∈(0,∞]) agrees with the Miyachi BM O space [Miy] defined by
BM OM(Ω) =f ∈L1loc(Ω)kfkBM OM <∞ , kfkBM OM := [f]BM OM + [f]bM, [f]BM OM := sup ( 1 |Br(x)| Z Br(x) |f −fBr(x)|dy B2r(x)⊂Ω ) , [f]bM := sup ( 1 |Br(x)| Z Br(x) |f|dy B2r(x)⊂Ω and B5r(x)∩Ω c 6 =∅ ) .
Proposition 5. Let Ω be an arbitrary domain in Rn. Let 0 < ν1 ≤ν2 ≤δ ≤ ∞. Then there
exists a constant c >0 depending only on n, ν1, ν2, δ such that
[∇dΩ·v]bν2 ≤[∇dΩ·v]bν1 +c[v]Γ δ
for allv ∈L1ul(Γδ).
Proof. We may assume that ν1 <∞. Let Qr(x) denote a cube centered at x with side length
2r, Since |∇d|= 1 andBr(x)⊂Qr(x), we see that
[∇dΩ·v]bν2 −[∇dΩ·v]bν1 ≤sup ( 1 rn Z Br(x)∩Ω |∇dΩ·v|dy x∈∂Ω, ν1≤r < ν2 ) ≤sup ( 1 rn Z Qr(x) |v˜|dy x∈∂Ω, ν1 ≤r ≤ν2 )
where ˜vdenotes the zero extension ofvto Rn. Sinceν2 ≤δ so thatQr(x)∩Ω⊂Γδ, we see that
sup x∈∂Ω Z Qr(x) |v˜|dy ≤ kvkL1 ul(Γδ) for ν1≤r≤ν2
provided that ν2 is finite by taking an equivalent norm ofL1ul; in fact we taker0 =√n ν2 This
implies that
[∇dΩ·v]bν2 −[∇dΩ·v]bν1 ≤ 1
νn
1
[v]Γδ.
If ν2 =δ =∞, we may assumer = 2ℓν1. We divide Qr(x) into subcube Qj, j = 1, . . . ,2ℓn of
side length 2ν1. Then
1 |Qr(x)| Z Qr(x) |˜v|dy ≤ 1 2ℓn(2ν 1)n 2ℓn X j=1 Z Qj |˜v|dy ≤ 2 ℓn 2ℓn(2ν 1)nk ˜ vkL1 ul ≤ 1 (2ν1)nk ˜ vkL1 ul
wherer0 inL1ulnorm is taken as
√
n ν1. We thus observe that
[∇d·v]bν2 −[∇d·v]bν1 ≤c[v]Γ δ.
✷
By Propositions 1, 5 we do not need to care about ν. More precisely,
Theorem 6. Let Ωbe an arbitrary domain inRn. Assume thatµ∈(0,∞]and that δ∈(0,∞]. Then norms k · kvbmoµ,ν1
δ and k · kvbmo µ,ν2
δ are equivalent provided that 0< ν1 < ν2 <∞. In the case δ =∞, we may take ν2=∞.
In general, different from Theorem 3, the spacevBM Oµ,ν may not be included inbmoµν even
for finite µ by the decomposition (9) and the fact that BM Oµ is not contained in L1
ul(Γδ) for
any δ. However, if each connected component of the boundary Γ of Ω has a curved part, we are able to compare these spaces.
Definition 7. Let Ω be a uniformlyC1 domain inRnand Γ0 be a connected component of the
boundary Γ of Ω. We say that Γ0 has afully curved part if the set of all normals of Γ0spansRn.
In other words, the set n(x)∈Rn|x∈Γ0 contains n linearly independent vectors, when n
denotes the unit exterior normal of Γ0.
We introduce bν(Γ0)-seminorm for convenience. Let us decompose Γ into its connected
component Γj so that Γ =Sm j=1Γj. We set [f]bν(Γj):= sup ( r−n Z Ω∩Br(x) f(y)dy x∈Γj, 0< r < ν ) .
Evidently, [f]bν = max1≤j≤m[f]bν(Γj) at least for smallν >0.
The existence of a fully curved part implies “non-degeneracy” of the seminorm [∇d·f]bν. Lemma 8. Let Ω be a uniformly C2 domain in Rn. Let Γj be a connected component of the boundary Γ of Ω. Ifc∈Rn satisfies
[∇dΩ·c]bν(Γj)= 0,
for some ν >0, then c= 0 provided that Γj has a fully curved part.
Proof. If Ω is uniformlyC2, then dΩ is C2 in (Γj)δ for sufficiently small δ >0. Since −∇dΩ(x)
at x∈Γj equalsn(x), we see that
1
rn
Z
Br(x)∩Ω
with scalar constantc0. Our assumption implies that c·n(x) = 0 forx∈Γj. If Γj has a curved
part, then by definition this implies that c= 0. ✷
Here is a few comments on examples of such domains. All connected components of the boundary of a bounded domain, exterior domain has a fully curved part. A perturbed half space
Rnψ =(x′, xn)∈Rnxn> ψ(x′), x′= (x1, . . . , xn−1)∈Rn−1
with ψ∈ Cc1(Rn−1), ψ6≡0 is another example. However, a half-space Rn+, cylindrical domain
G×Rn−k withk≥1, G⊂Rk does not have a boundary having a fully curved part. Our goal is to show that for a domain with boundary components having a fully curved part the space
vBM Oµ,ν is comparable withvbmoµ,νδ space if the boundary is compact.
Theorem 9. Let Ω be a C2 bounded or exterior domain in Rn so that each component of the boundary has a fully curved part. For µ∈(0,∞]and ν ∈(0, R∗) the identity holds:
vBM Oµ,ν(Ω) =vbmoµ,νν .
Proof. Let Γj be aj-th connected component of the boundary Γ =∂Ω such that Γ =Smj=1Γj. Since (Γj)
ν is C2 and compact, there is a number r0 ∈(0, ν/2) such that
(Γj)ν = [ x∈Λ intBr0(x), Λ⊂(Γ j) ν,
where Γj is a connected component of Γ and (Γj)ν denotes itsν-neighborhood. The next lemma
shows that
vBM Oν,ν(Ω)⊂L1ul(Γν)
which yields the desired result. Note that we may assume ν≤µby Proposition 1. ✷ Lemma 10. Under the same assumption of Theorem 9 withµ≤ν assume thatr0 < ν/2< R∗/2 is taken so that
(Γi)ν =
[
x∈Λ
intBr0(x)
with some Λ⊂(Γj)ν. Then there exists C >0 depending only on r0, n,Γj, ν such that
sup x∈Λ 1 |Br0(x)| Z Br0(x) |f(y)|dy ≤C[f]BM Oµ((Γj)ν)+ [∇dΩ·f]bν(Γj) .
1 |B(x)| Z B(x) f dy has an estimate sup x∈Λ fB(x)≤C[f]BM Oµ((Γj)ν)+ [∇d·f]bν(Γj) . (10) {{KIKI}}
If this is proved, applying the triangle inequality (|f|)B(x)≤ 1 |B(x)| Z B(x) f −fB(x) dy+fB(x)
yields the desired result.
We shall prove the key inequality (10) by contradiction argument. Assume the inequality (10) were false. Then,there would exist a sequence {fk}∞
k=1 such that 1 = sup x∈Λ fBk(x)≥khfki BM Oµ+ h ∇dΩ·fk i bν .
Here we suppress (Γi)ν and Γj in the right-hand side. Since
sup
x∈Λ
ck(x)= 1 with ck(x) =fBk(x)∈Rn,
there is a sequence {xk}∞k=1 in Λ with the property
1≥ck(xk)
≥1/2.
By taking a subsequence we may assume thatxkconverges to some ˆx∈(Γj)νsince Γjis compact
and d xk, ∂(Γj)ν
≥r0, whered(xk, A) denotes the distance from a pointxk to a set A. Since
Γj is connected, there is an increasing sequence{Kℓ}∞ℓ=1of connected compact sets in (Γj)ν such
that intKℓ ∋xˆ forℓ≥1 and (Γj)ν =S∞ℓ=1Kℓ. By compactness, there is a finite subset Λℓ of Λ
with the property that
Kℓ ⊂
[
x∈Λℓ
intB(x), Λℓ⊂Λℓ+1
and the right-hand side is connected. By taking a further subsequence we may assume that
ck(x)→c(x) for x∈Λℓ. However, sincefkBM Oµ→0 so that
Z
B(x)
fk−ck dx→0
ask→ ∞, we see that c(x) =c(y) if intB(x)∩intB(y)6=∅. Since
[
x∈Λℓ
is connected,c(x) is independent ofx∈Λℓ, sayc=cℓ. By taking a further subsequence offk
we may assume that ck(x)→ cℓ in Λℓ. By a diagonal argument there is a subsequence of
fk such that ck(x)→c for x∈ ∞ [ ℓ=1 Λℓ =: Λ∞⊂Λ.
We thus observe that
Z
B(x)
fk(y)−c dy →0 for x∈Λ∞ as k→ ∞.
If we take B(x) such that ˆx∈intB(x),c should not be equal to zero since ck(xk)
≥1/2 and
xk →xˆask→ ∞. We now invoke the property that
h ∇dΩ·fk i bν →0. Since (Γj)ν = [ x∈Λ∞ B(x), we observe thatfk→cinL1 loc (Γj)ν
. By taking a subsequence we may assume thatfk(x)→c
for a.e. x ∈ (Γj)ν so that ∇dΩ ·fk → ∇dΩ ·c, a.e. By lower semicontinuity of integrals
(Fatou’s lemma) and supremum operation, the seminorm bν is lower semicontinuous under this
convergence. We thus conclude that
[∇dΩ·c]bν ≤ lim k→∞ h ∇dΩ·fk i bν = 0.
By Lemma 8 thisc must be zero which leads a contradiction. We thus proved the key estimate
(10). This completes the proof of Lemma 10. ✷
3
A variant of Jones’ extension theorem
Different from L∞ function it is in general impossible to extend BM O function by setting zero outside the domain. Indeed, the zero-extension of log min(x,1) ∈bmo∞∞(R1+) does not belong to BM O∞(R). The goal in this section is to give a linear, extention operator of BM O type function so that the support of extended function is contained in an ε-neighborhood of the original domain, of a function.
For this purpose we recall an extension given by P. W. Jones [PJ]. Since we modify the way of construction, we will give a sketch of this construction. We first recall a dyadic Whitney decomposition of a set A in Rn. Let A = {Qj}j be a set of dyadic closed cubes with side
length ℓ(Qj) contained inAsatisfying following four conditions.
(i) A=∪jQj,
(ii) intQj∩intQk=∅if j=k,
(iii) √n≤d(Qj,Rn\A)/ℓ(Qj)≤4√nfor all j∈N,
(iv) 1/4≤ℓ(Qk)/ℓ(Qj)≤4 ifQj∩Qk6=∅.
We say thatA is called a dyadic Whitney decomposition ofA. Such a decomposition exists for any open sets; see [Ste, Chapter VI, Theorem 1]. Hered(B, C) for setsB, C inRn is defined as
d(B, C) = inf|x−y|x∈B, y∈C .
IfB is a point x, we writed(x, C) instead of d({x}, C).
There are at least two important distance functions on A. For Qj, Qk ∈ A, a family {Q(ℓ)}mℓ=0 ⊂ A is called a Whitney chain of length m if Q(0) = Qj and Q(m) = Qk such
that Q(ℓ)∩Q(ℓ+ 1) =6 ∅ forℓ with 0 ≤ℓ ≤m−1. Then the length of the shortest Whitney chain connectingQj and Qk gives a distance onA, which is denoted byd1(Qj, Qk). The second
distance for Qj, Qk∈ Ais defined as d2(Qj, Qk) := log ℓ(Qj) ℓ(Qk) + log ℓ(Qj, Qk) ℓ(Qj) +ℓ(Qk) + 1 .
Note that d1 and d2 are invariant under dilation as well as translation and rotation. P. W.
Jones [PJ] gives a necessary and sufficient conditon for a domain such that there exists a linear extension operator. A domain Ω is called a uniform domain if there exists constants a, b > 0 such that for all x, y ∈Ω there exists a rectifiable curve γ ⊂Ω of length s(γ) ≤a|x−y| with min{s(γ(x, z)), s(γ(y, z))} ≤ bd(z, ∂Ω), where γ(x, z) denotes the part of γ betweenx and z
on the curve; see e.g, [GO]. It is equivalent to say that there is a constant K >0 such that
d1(Qj, Qk)≤Kd2(Qj, Qk) (11) {{UDUD}}
for all Qj, Qk ∈ Aand some dyadic Whitney decompositionA of Ω.
Theorem 11. Let A ⊂ Rn be a uniform domain. Then there is a constant C(K) depending only on K in (11) such that for each f ∈ BM O∞(A) there is an extension f ∈ BM O∞(Rn)
satysfying
fBM O∞(Rn)≤C(K)[f]BM O∞(A).
The operator f 7→f is a bounded linear operator. Conversely, if there exists such an extension, then A is a uniform domain.
A bounded Lipschitz domain is a typical example of a uniform domain. The constant K
in (11) depends only on the Lipschitz regularity of the domain. A Lipshitz half space Rnψ is another example of a uniform domain; hereψ is a Lipshitz function on Rn−1.
We next note that if we modify the construction by P. W. Jones, the support of the extension
f is contained in an ε-neighborhood of Ω iff is also inL1ul type space.
Theorem 12. LetΩ⊂Rnbe a uniform domain. For eachε >0there is a constantC=C(K, ε)
withK in (11) such that for eachf ∈bmo∞∞(Ω)there is an extension f ∈bmo∞∞(Ω2ε) such that
fbmo∞
∞(Ω2ε)≤
C[f]bmo∞ ∞(Ω)
and suppf ⊂Ωε, where
Ωε:=x∈Rn
d(x,Ω)< ε .
The operator f 7→f is a bounded linear operator.
This can be proved almost along the same way as in [PJ]. We shall give an explicit proof.
Proof. Let kε be the smallest integer such that 2−kε < 5√εn. So 2−kε ≥ 10ε√n. Let E ={Qj}
be the Whitney decomposition of Ω and E′ ={Q′j} be the Whitney decomposition of Ωc. Let E∗ be the set of Whitney cubes in E whose side length is strictly greater than 2−kε. For each
Qm ∈E∗, we define a functiongm on Ω by
gm(x) :=
(
fQm, if x∈Qm
0, else and we further define a function g on Ω by
g:= X
Qm∈E∗
gm.
Here fQm= |Q1m|
R
Qmf(y)dy for eachQm ∈E∗. Leteg be the zero extension ofg from Ω toR
n.
Without loss of generality, we assume that the radius r0 of the ball equals 1 in defining the
space L1ul(Ω). Notice that
kgmkL∞(Ω)≤ 1 |Qm|· Z Qm |f|dy.
Let k0 be the smallest integer such that 2−k0 < √2n. If ℓ(Qm)≤2−k0, then kfkL1(Qm)≤[f]Γ∞.
In this case, as ℓ(Qm)>2−kε,
Ifℓ(Qm)>2−k0, we divide Qm into (ℓ2(Q−km0))n small subcubes of side length 2−k0. Hence, Z Qm |f|dy= (ℓ(QmX)/2−k0)n i=1 Z Qi m |f|dy≤(ℓ(Qm) 2−k0 ) n·[f] Γ∞≤ |Qm| ·n n 2 ·[f]Γ ∞, in this case kgmkL∞(Ω)≤n n 2 ·[f]Γ ∞. Therefore, kgkL∞(Ω)≤Cn,ε·[f]Γ∞
and we deduce that g∈bmo∞∞(Ω) asL∞(Ω)⊂bmo∞∞(Ω).
Let f∗ := f −g ∈ bmo∞∞(Ω). We do Jones extension to f∗. If Ω is unbounded, for each
Q′j ∈E′, we find a nearset Qj ∈E satisfying ℓ(Qj) ≥ℓ(Q′j). We define that fe∗=f∗ on Ω and
e
f∗(x) =fQ∗j for x ∈ Q′j. If Ω is bounded, we pick Q0 ∈ E such that ℓ(Q0) = sup
Qj∈E
ℓ(Qj). We
define that fe∗ = f∗ on Ω, fe∗(x) = fQ∗j for x ∈ Q′j where ℓ(Q′j) ≤ ℓ(Q0) and fe∗(x) = fQ∗0 for
x ∈ Q′j where ℓ(Qj) > ℓ(Q0). By Jones [PJ], fe∗ ∈ BM O and [fe∗]BM O ≤ CK ·[f∗]BM O∞(Ω).
By this extension, for fe∗(x) 6= 0, either x ∈ Ω or x ∈ Q′j such that ℓ(Q′j) ≤ 2−kε. Since
d(Q′j,Ω)≤4√n·ℓ(Q′j), pick x ∈Q′
j and z ∈Γ such that |x−z|= d(Q
′
j,Ω). For any y ∈Q
′
j, |y−z| ≤ |y−x|+|x−z| ≤ 5√n·ℓ(Q′j). So intQ′j ⊂ B5√
n·ℓ(Q′j)(z) for some z ∈ Γ. Since
5√n·ℓ(Q′j) ≤ 5√n·2−kε < ε, intQ′
j ⊂ Ωε. Let fe:= fe∗ +eg and f = fe|Ω2ε, we have that
suppf ⊂Ωε and by previous calculation,
[f]BM O∞(Ω2ε) ≤ [fe]BM O ≤[fe∗]BM O+ [eg]BM O ≤CK·[f∗]BM O∞(Ω)+ 2||g||∞
≤ CK,n,ε·([f]BM O∞(Ω)+ [f]Γ∞).
Let B(x) denotes the ball of radius 1 centered at x and Γε := {x ∈ Ωc|dΩ(x) < ε}. For
B(x)∩Ωε6=∅, Z B(x)∩Ωε |f|dy = Z B(x)∩Ω| f|dy+ Z B(x)∩Γε| f|dy.
The first integral on the right hand side is directly estimated by [f]∞, so we only need to consider the second integral. LetQ′∗ be a largest Whitney cube inE′ that intersects B(x)∩Γε.
For Q′j ∈ E′, [PJ, Lemma 2.10] says that if Qj ∈ E is a nearest Whitney cube satisfying
ℓ(Qj)≥ℓ(Q′j), thend(Qj, Q′j)≤65K2·ℓ(Q ′ j). Consider Q ′ j ∈E ′ such thatQ′j∩B(x)∩Γε6=∅, letxj ∈Qj whereQj is a nearest Whitney cube satisfyingℓ(Qj)≥ℓ(Qj′), letx′j ∈Qj′∩B(x)∩Γε and x′∗ ∈Q′∗∩B(x)∩Γε. By choosingK large such that K2≥2√n, we have that
|xj −x ′ ∗| ≤ |x ′ ∗−x ′ j|+|x ′ j−xj| ≤2 + 2√n·ℓ(Q ′ j) + 65K2·ℓ(Q ′ j)≤2 + 66K2·ℓ(Qj).
ℓ(Q′∗), |xj −x′∗| ≤2 + 132K2·ℓ(Q∗).
If B(x)∩Γ 6= ∅, then √n·ℓ(Q′∗) ≤ d(Q′∗,Ω) ≤ 2. Hence ℓ(Q∗) ≤ 2ℓ(Q′∗) ≤ √4
n, for any xj ∈ Qj, |xj −x′∗| < 2 + 133K2 · √4n. Consider the cube Qf′∗ with center x′∗ and side length
4 +1064√K2
n . For each Q
′
j ∈E
′
such thatQ′j∩B(x)∩Γε6=∅, the corresponding nearestQj ∈E
such thatℓ(Qj)≥ℓ(Q′j) we choose to definefe∗ is contained in Qf′∗, i.e. Qj ⊂Qf′∗. Hence,
Z B(x)∩Γε| f|dy= X Q′j∈E′, Q′j∩B(x)∩Γε6=∅ Z Q′j∩B(x)∩Γε| fQ∗j|dy ≤ Z f Q′ ∗∩Ω |f∗|dy.
Letpbe the largest integer such that 2−p>4+1064K2 √ n , so 2−p ≤8+ 2128K2 √ n . LetQf ′ ∗ be contained
in a larger cube Qe where Qe has center x′∗ and side length 2−p. We can divide Qe into (22−−kp0)n
subcubes of side length 2−k0, thus
Z f Q′ ∗∩Ω |f∗|dy ≤ (2−p/2−k0)n X i=1 Z f Qi∩Ω |f∗|dy≤(2− p 2−k0) n·[f∗] Γ∞ ≤CK,n·[f∗]Γ∞.
IfB(x)∩Γ =∅, i.e. B(x)⊂Ωc. LetE1′ :={Q′j ∈E′|Q′j∩B(x)6=∅}. Letℓm := inf Q′j∈E1′
ℓ(Q′j) and Q′∗ be a largest Q′j ∈ E1′. If ℓm = 0, then there exists z ∈ Γ∩ ∂B(x). In this case, √
n·ℓ(Q′∗)≤d(Q′∗,Ω)≤2. Therefore same argument as in the case whereB(x)∩Γ6=∅gives that
kfkL1(B(x)∩Γε)≤CK,n·[f∗]∞. If 0< ℓm ≤2, then pick Q′m∈E1′ such that ℓ(Q′m) =ℓm. Since
√
n·ℓ(Q′∗)≤d(Q′∗,Ω)≤2 +√n·ℓ(Q′m) +d(Q′m,Ω)≤2 + 10√n, we have thatℓ(Q∗)≤ √4
n+ 20.
Hence|xj−x′∗| ≤2+133K2·(√4n+20). Following the argument as in the case whereB(x)∩Γ6=∅,
we can deduce that kfkL1(B(x)∩Γε)≤CK,n·[f∗]Γ∞. Ifℓm >2, then B(x) intersects at most 2n
Whitney cubes inE′. Without loss of generality, assume thatE1′ has 2n elements. Then
Z B(x)∩Γε| f|dy≤ X Q′i∈E1′ Z B(x)∩Q′i| fQ∗i|dy ≤ X Q′i∈E1′ |B(x)∩Q′i| |Qi| · Z Qi |f∗|dy. DivideQi into ℓ(Q i) 2−k0 n
subcubes of side length 2−k0, we have that
Z Qi |f∗|dy ≤ ℓ(Q i) 2−k0 n ·[f∗]Γ∞ ≤ |Qi| ·n n 2 ·[f∗]Γ ∞. Therefore, Z B(x)∩Γε| f|dy ≤ X Q′i∈E1′ |B(x)∩Q′i|·nn2 ·[f∗]Γ ∞ ≤Cn·[f ∗] Γ∞.
As an application we give an estimate for the product of a H¨older function and a function in
bmo∞∞. We first recall properties of point multipliers. It is known that for a local hardy space
h1 =F10,2 [Sa, Theorem 3.18], there is a constant C such that
kϕgkF0 1,2 ≤CkϕkCγkgkF1,20 g∈F 0 1,2 (12) {{MHAMHA}} forϕ∈Cγ(Rn), γ ∈(0,1), where kϕkCγ = sup x∈Rn| ϕ(x)|+ sup x,y∈Rn x6=y |ϕ(x)−ϕ(y)||x−y|γ;
see e.g. [Sa, Remark 4.4]. Since
bmo=BM O∞(Rn)∩L1ul(Rn) equals to F0
∞,2 [Sa, Theorem 3.26], it is a dual space of h1 =F10,2 [Sa, Theorem 3.22]. Thus
kϕfkbmo≤CkϕkCγkfkbmo. (13) {{MEME}}
Theorem 13. Let Ω ⊂ Rn be a uniform domain. Let ϕ ∈ Cγ(Ω), γ ∈ (0,1). For each
f ∈bmo∞
∞(Ω), the function ϕf ∈bmo∞∞(Ω)satisfies
kϕfkbmo∞
∞(Ω) ≤CkϕkCγ(Ω)kfkbmo∞∞(Ω)
withC independent of ϕ and f.
Proof. By [McS], there exists ϕ∈Cγ(Rn) such thatϕ|Ω =ϕand
kϕkCγ(Rn)≤ kϕkCγ(Ω).
For our current purpose it suffices to setϕ= max{min{ϕ∗,kϕk∞},−kϕk∞} with
ϕ∗(x) = inf y∈Ω{ϕ(y) + [ϕ]Cγ · |x−y| γ}, where kϕkCγ(Ω) =kϕkL∞(Ω)+ [ϕ]Cγ(Ω), kϕkL∞(Ω) = sup x∈Ω| ϕ(x)|and [ϕ]Cγ(Ω) = sup x,y∈Ω |ϕ(x)−ϕ(y)| |x−y|γ ;
we often suppress Ω. By definitionϕ∗(x)≤ϕ(x). Moreover, sinceϕ(x)≤ϕ(y) + [ϕ]Cγ· |x−y|γ
forx, y ∈Ω, we see that ϕ(x) ≤ϕ∗(x) which implies ϕ=ϕ∗ on Ω. For any x∈Rn and ε >0 there isyε ∈Ω such that
Forx1∈Rn we observe that
ϕ∗(x1)−ϕ∗(x)≤ϕ(yε) + [ϕ]Cγ· |x1−yε|γ− {ϕ(yε) + [ϕ]Cγ · |x−yε|γ}+ε≤[ϕ]Cγ· |x−x1|γ+ε.
Since εis arbitrary, we see that ϕ∗(x1)−ϕ∗(x)≤[ϕ]Cγ · |x−x1|γ. Interchanging the role ofx1
and x, we conclude that
[ϕ∗]Cγ(Rn)≤[ϕ]Cγ(Ω).
Since kϕk∞ < ∞, ϕ = ϕ on Ω and ϕ is still H¨older. More precisely, [ϕ]Cγ ≤ [ϕ∗]Cγ. By
definition kϕk∞≤ kϕk∞ so we conclude that kϕkCγ ≤ kϕkCγ.
Extending f ∈ bmo∞∞(Ω) to f ∈ bmo by Theorem 12, we conclude from multiplication estimate (13) that kϕfkbmo∞ ∞(Ω) ≤ kϕfkbmo ≤ C· kϕkCγ(Rn)· kfkbmo ≤ C· kϕkCγ(Ω)· kfkbmo∞ ∞(Ω). ✷ Remark 14. If we prove that the extensionf 7→f constructed in Theorem 11 is bounded from
bmo∞∞ to bmo =BM O∩Lul1 , then the support condition will follow by taking ϕ∈Cγ(Rn) in Theorem 13 as a cutoff function of Ω, i.e. ϕ≡ 1 on Ω with suppϕ ⊂Ωε. In other words, we
consider f 7→ ϕf. However, the proof that f ∈ L1
ul needs some argument so we give a direct
proof of Theorem 12.
For BM Obµ,∞ function in Ω it is easy to see that its zero extension is in BM O space; see e.g. [BGST, Lemma 4].
Theorem 15. Let Ω be an arbitrary domain in Rn. Assume that µ ∈ (0,∞]. For f ∈ BM Obµ,ν(Ω) with ν ≥ 2µ, let f0 be the zero extension to Rn, i.e. f0(x) = 0 for x ∈ Ωc
and f0(x) = f(x) for x ∈ Ω. Then f0 ∈ BM Oµ(Rn) and [f0]BM Oµ ≤ C[f]BM Oµ,ν
b with C independent of f.
Proof. If the ball B of radius ≤µ is in Ω, then 1 |B| Z B| f0−f0B|dy ≤[f]BM Oµ. If B is in Ωc, thenR
B|f0−f0B|dy = 0. It remains to estimate the integral if B has nonempty
Then,Br(x)⊂B2r(x0) and thus 1 |Br(x)| Z Br(x) |f0−f0Br(x)|dy ≤ 2 |Br(x)| Z B2r(x0) |f0|dy ≤ 2n+1 ωn · [f]b2µ,
whereωnis the volume of an n-dimensional ball. ✷
Remark 16. In [BGST, Lemma 4], it is assumed that Ω = Ω′ ×Rn−k where Ω′ is a bounded Lipschitz domain in Rk. However, from the proof above it is clear that we do not need this requirement. Thus we give a full proof here.
As an application of boundedness of multiplication, we give invariance of function spaces under coordinate changes. We say that Ψ is a global Ck+β (resp. Ck)-diffeomorphism if Ck+β
(resp. Ck)-norm of Ψ and Ψ−1 are bounded inRn, wherek∈Nandβ ∈(0,1).
Proposition 17. The spacebmo is invariant under bi-Lipschitz coordinate change and the space
h1 is invariant under global C1+β-diffeomorphism.
Proof. Forf ∈bmo, by a simple change of variables on the equivalent definition of the seminorm [f]BM O where [f]BM O= sup B⊂Rn inf c∈R Z B| f(y)−c|dy,
see e.g. [Gra, Proposition 3.1.2], we can easily deduce thatbmo is invariant under bi-Lipschitz coordinate change.
Let g∈h1(Rn) and Ψ be a global C1+β-diffeomorphism. We have that
kg◦Ψkh1 = sup kfkbmo≤1 Z Rn f·g◦Ψdy .
By change of variable we have that
Z Rn f(y)·g◦Ψ(y)dy = Z Rn f ◦Ψ−1(x)·g(x)·JΨ−1(x)dx ,
whereJΨ−1 is the Jacobian which is of regularityCβ. Then by thebmo−h1 duality [Sa, Theorem
3.22] and multiplication estimate (12), we deduce that
Z Rn f ◦Ψ−1·g·JΨ−1dx ≤ kf◦Ψ−1kbmo· kgJΨ−1kh1 ≤ kf◦Ψ−1kbmo· kJΨ−1kCβ · kgkh1.
Since bmo is independent of bi-Lipschitz coordinate change, we have that
for some constant C independent of g and Ψ. ✷ Proposition 18. The space F11,2(Rn) is independent of global C1+β-diffeomorphism.
Proof. Let g ∈ F11,2 and Ψ be a global C1+β-diffeomorphism. By multiplication estimate (12) and Proposition 17, we have that
k∇(g◦Ψ)kF0
1,2 ≤C· k∇ΨkCβ · k(∇g)◦ΨkF1,20 ≤C· k∇ΨkCβ · k∇Ψ −1kL
∞· kJΨ−1kCβ · kgkF1 1,2,
where JΨ−1 is the Jacobian for Ψ−1 and C is a constant independent of g and Ψ. Hence
∇(g◦Ψ)∈F0
1,2. Since the differentiation mapping is bounded from Fp,qs toFp,qs−1 forp∈(0,∞), q ∈ (0,∞] and s ∈ R, see e.g. [Sa, Theorem 2.12], we have that ∆(g◦Ψ) ∈ F1−,21. Since
F1
1,2 ֒→ F10,2, Proposition 17 tells us that g◦ Ψ ∈ F10,2 and thus g ◦Ψ ∈ F1−,21. Therefore,
(I −∆)(g◦Ψ)∈F1−,21. Notice that [Sa, Theorem 2.12] also tells us that forσ ∈R, (I −∆)σ is
an isomorphism fromFp,qs to Fp,qs−2σ. Hence by letting σ =−1, we deduce that
kg◦ΨkF1 1,2 =k(I −∆) −1(I−∆)(g◦Ψ)kF 1 1,2 =C· k(I−∆)(g◦Ψ)kF−1 1,2 ≤C·kg◦ΨkF0 1,2 +k∇(g◦Ψ)kF1,20 ≤C·(1 +k∇ΨkCβ)· k∇Ψ−1kL∞ · kJΨ−1kCβ· kgkF1 1,2,
whereC is a constant independent ofg and Ψ. ✷
Remark 19. The proof of Proposition 18 also says that F11,2 ={f ∈F10,2| ∇f ∈(F10,2)n}.
4
Trace problems
In this section we show that the normal trace of a vector field in vbmoµ,νδ is in L∞(Γ) if its divergence is well controlled. We begin with the case that Ω is the half space Rn+.
We first recall that the trace operator (T rf)(x′) =f(x′,0) forf ∈F11,2(Rn) gives a surjective bounded linear operator fromF1
1,2(Rn) to L1(Rn−1); see [Tr92, Section 4.4.3].
Proposition 20 ([Tr92]). The operator T r from F11,2 to L1(Rn−1) is surjective for n ≥ 2. Actually, surjectivity holds for a smaller space B1
1,1. The inverse operator is called the extension
and it is a bounded operator.
For a C2 domain Ω a normal trace v·n on Γ = ∂Ω of v is well-defined as an element of
then by an interpolation inequality (see e.g. [BGST, Theorem 11]) v is in Lploc for any p ≥ 1. Thus if divvis in Lploc,v·n is well-defined. We derive L∞ estimate forv·n when Ω is the half space.
Theorem 21. Let µ, ν, δ be in (0,∞] and n ≥ 2. Then there is a constant C = C(µ, ν, δ, n)
such that kv·nkL∞(Rn−1) ≤C kvkvbmoµ,ν δ (Rn+)+kdivvkLnul(Γδ)
for all v∈vbmoµ,νδ (Rn+).
Proof. Let v ∈ vbmoµ,νδ (Rn+), by definition the n-th component vn of v = (v′, vn) belongs to BM Obµ,ν(Rn+). For x′0 ∈ Rn−1, we consider the region U = B1(x′0)×(−δ, δ) where B1(x′0)
denotes the ball in Rn−1 centered at x′
0 with radius 1. Let vre denotes the restriction of v on
U ∩Rn+, i.e. vre=v|U∩Rn
+. We have thatvre∈bmo ∞ ∞(U∩Rn+) and sup x′∈B 1(x′0) r<ν 1 |Br((x′,0))| Z Br((x′,0)) |(vre)n|dy <∞.
Let (vre)n be the zero extension of (vre)n to U. By Theorem 15, (vre)n is in BM O∞(U). Let v′
re be the even extension ofv
′ re to U of the form v′ re(x′, xn) = ( v′re(x′, xn), x′ ∈B1(x′0) and xn>0 v′re(x′,−xn), x′ ∈B1(x′0) and xn<0 (14) and set ev = (v′
re,(vre)n). We have that ve∈bmo∞∞(U). By Theorem 12 its Jones’ extension vU
belongs to bmo∞∞(Rn).
Integration by parts formally yields
Z Rn−1 vU·nρ dx′ = Z Rn + (divvU)ρ dx− Z Rn + vU · ∇ρ dx. (15) {{INTINT}}
By Proposition 20 there is an extension operatorExt:L1(Rn−1)→F11,2(Rn) such thatT r◦Ext
is the identity operator on L1. For ϕ∈Cc∞B1 2(x
′
0)
we setσ =Ext ϕ. By multiplying a cut off function θ ∈Cc∞(U) such that θ≡ 1 in 12U and consider ρ =θσ we still findρ ∈ F11,2(Rn) by a multiplier theorem [Sa, Theorem 3.18], [Tr92, Section 4.2.2]. We estimate (15) to get
Z Rn−1 vU ·nρ dx′ ≤ Z U (divvU)ρ dx + Z Rn + vU′ · ∇′ρ dx + Z Rn vUn ∂ρ ∂xn dx =I+II+III.
We may assume that ρ is even in xn by taking (ρ(x′, xn) +ρ(x′,−xn))/2 so that the second
term is estimated by bmo-h1 duality (h1)∗ = (F10,2)∗ =F∞0,2 =bmo as follows
II = Z Rn + v′U· ∇′ρ dx = 1 2 Z Rn vU′ · ∇′ρ dx ≤Ckv′Ukbmok∇′ρkh1.
The third term is estimated as
III ≤CkvUnkbmo ∂ρ ∂xn h1 .
The first term is estimated by
I ≤ kdivvUkLn(U)kρkLn/(n−1)(U)
≤CkdivvkLn
ul(Γδ)k∇ρkL1(U)
by the Sobolev inequality. Since k∇ρkL1 ≤ k∇ρkh1 and k∇ρkh1 ≤ kρkF1
1,2 ≤CkϕkL1 B1 2(x ′ 0) ,
collecting these estimates yields
Z B1 2(x ′ 0) v·nϕ dx′ ≤CkϕkL1 B1 2(x ′ 0) kvkvbmoµ,ν δ (Rn+)+kdivvkLnul(Γδ) .
This yields the desired estimate since Cc∞B1 2(x ′ 0) is dense in L1B1 2(x ′ 0) and C in the
right-hand side is independent ofx′0∈Rn−1. ✷
We now consider a curved domain. Let Ω be a uniformlyC2domain inRn so that the reach
R∗ of Γ is positive andβ ∈(0,1).
Theorem 22. Let Ω be a uniformly C2+β domain in Rn with n ≥2. Let µ, ν, δ be in (0,∞].
Then there is a constant C =C(µ, ν, δ,Ω) such that
kv·nkL∞(Γ)≤C kvkvbmoµ,ν δ (Ω)+kdivvkL n ul(Γδ)
for allv ∈vbmoµ,νδ (Ω).
We shall prove this result by localizing the problems near the boundary and use normal (principal) coordinates. Let Ω be a uniformlyC2+β domain. In other words, there existr∗, δ∗ >
C2+β(Br∗(0 ′ )) with |∇khz0| ≤L in Br∗(0 ′ ) for k= 0,1,2, [∇2hz0]Cβ(Br ∗(0′)) <∞,∇ ′ hz0(0 ′ ) = 0′, hz0(0 ′ ) = 0 such that the neighborhood
Ur∗,δ∗,hz0(z0) :={(x ′ , xn)∈Rn|hz0(x ′ )−δ∗ < xn< hz0(x ′ ) +δ∗,|x′|< r∗} satisfies Ω∩Ur∗,δ∗,hz0(z0) ={(x ′ , xn)∈Rn|hz0(x ′ )< xn< hz0(x ′ ) +δ∗,|x′|< r∗} and ∂Ω∩Ur∗,δ∗,hz0(z0) ={(x ′ , xn)∈Rn|xn=hz0(x ′ ),|x′|< r∗}.
For x∈Ω, let πx be a point on Γ such that|x−πx|=dΩ(x). If x is within the reach of Γ,
then thisπx is unique. There exist r < r∗ and δ < δ∗ such that
U(z0) ={x∈Ur∗,δ∗,hz0(z0)|(πx)
′
∈Br(0′), dΓ(x)< δ}
is contained inUr∗,δ∗,hz0(z0). SincedΩ isC2+β in Γσ forσ < R∗ [GT, Chap. 14, Appendix] [KP, §4.4], we may take δ smaller (independent ofz0) so thatdΩ is C2+β inU(z0)∩Ω.
We next consider the normal coordinate inU(z0)
( x′ =y′+yn∇′dΩ(y′, ψ(y′)) xn=ψ(y′) +yn∂xndΩ(y′, ψ(y′)) (16) or shortly x=πx−dΩ(x)n(πx).
Let this coordinate change be denoted byx=ψ(y),ψ∈C1+β(Br(0′)). Notice that∇ψ(0) =I. If we considerr and δ small, this coordinate change is indeed a local C1-diffeomorphism which maps U(z0) to V where V := Br(0′)×(−δ, δ). Moreover, by [Lew], we extend ψ to a global C1-diffeomorphism ψe such that ψe|V =ψ and k∇ψekL∞(Rn) <2. Let the inverse of ψ in V be
denoted by φ, i.e. φ=ψ−1.
Lemma 23. Let W be a vector field with measureble coefficient in Γσ, σ < R∗ of the form
W = n X i=1 wi ∂ ∂xi .
Let y be the normal coordinate such that yn=dΩ(x). LetW˜ be W in y coordinate of the form
W =Pnj=1wj˜ (y)∂/∂yj. Then
˜
wn(y) =∇dΩ(x(y))·w(x(y)).
We shall prove this lemma in Appendix which follows from a simple linear algebra.
Proof of Theorem 22. We first observe that the restrictionvonU(z0)∩Ω is inbmo∞∞(U(z0)∩Ω).
By considering the following equivalent definition of the seminorm [f]BM O∞(D) where
[f]BM O∞(D)= sup Br(x)⊂D inf c∈R 1 |Br(x)| Z Br(x) |f(y)−c|dy,
see [Gra, Proposition 3.1.2], we can deduce that the space bmo∞
∞ on a bounded domain is
independent of bi-Lipschitz coordinate change. We introduce normal coordinate for a vector field v =Pni=1vi∂/∂xi with vi ∈ bmo∞∞(U(z0)∩Ω). Let w be the transformed vector field of
normal coordinatey. By Lemma 23, wnofw=Pni=1wi∂/∂yi fulfillswn=∇dΩ(x(y))·v(x(y)).
Since v∈vbmoµ,νδ (Ω), this implies thatw∈bmo∞∞(V ∩Rn+) and moreover, sup ℓ<δ, Bℓ(x)⊂V ℓ−n Z Bℓ(x)∩Rn+ |wn|dy <∞.
Thus, as in the proof of Theorem 21 the zero extension ofwn foryn<0 is inbmo∞∞(V), we still denote this extension by wn. Let J = J(y) denote the Jacobian of the mapping y 7→ x in V.
For tangential part w′ of w= (w′, wn), we take an even extension with weight J of the form
ˆ w′(y′, yn) = ( w′(y′, yn), yn>0 w′(y′,−yn)J(y′,−yn)/J(y′, yn), yn<0 (17)
and set ˜w(y′, yn) = ( ˆw′, wn). Let w′ denote the normal even extension of w′ to V, thus w ∈ bmo∞∞(V ∩Rn+) implies that w′ ∈ bmo∞∞(V). Let f be the function defined on V such that
f ≡ 1 for yn ≥ 0 and f = J(y′,−yn)/J(y′, yn) for yn < 0. Since J(y)−1 = |detDψ(y)|−1 = |detDφ(ψ(y))|fory∈V, we have that f ∈Cβ(V). Notice that ˆw′(y) =w′(y)f(y), therefore by
Theorem 13, we can deduce that ˜wbelongs to bmo∞∞(V). By Theorem 12, the Jones’ extension
wU of ˜wbelongs tobmo∞∞(Rn). Its expression in xcoodinate isvU which is only defined near Γ.
If the support of ρ is in U(z0), then integration by parts implies that
Z Γ vU·nρ dHn−1 = Z Ω (divvU)ρ dx− Z Ω vU· ∇ρ dx. (18) {{INT2INT2}}
side can be estimated similarly as in the proof of Theorem 21. It is sufficient to only consider the second integral. Let Ψ :Br(0′)→Γ∩U(z0) by (y′,0)7→(y′, hz0(y′)). Extend hz0 ∈C2(Br(0′))
to ˜h∈Cc2(Rn−1) such that ˜h|Br(0′) =hz0. Define Ψ :e R
n−1 →˜h(Rn−1) by (y′,0)7→(y′,h˜(y′)).
Hence Ψe|Br(0′) = Ψ. Extend furtherΨ toe Ψe∗ :Rn →Rn by (y′, d) 7→Ψ(e y′,0) + (0′, d). Notice
that this Ψe∗ is a global C2-diffeomorphism whose derivatives are bounded inRn up to second-order. Letζ >0 be a constant, for ϕ∈C1
c(Γ∩ζU(z0)), we have that ϕ◦Ψ∈Cc1(Bζ(0′)). Let
e
σ = Ext (ϕ◦Ψ) as in the proof of Theorem 21 and let σ =σe◦(Ψe∗)−1. With this choice of σ, we have that for (y′, hz0(y′))∈Γ∩ζU(z0),
σ(y′, hz0(y′)) =σe◦(Ψe∗)−
1(y′, h
z0(y′)) =eσ(y′,0) =ϕ◦Ψ(y′,0) =ϕ(y′, hz0(y′)).
Thus ϕis an extension ofσ. Since (Ψe∗)−1 is a globalC2-diffeomorphism and eσ∈F11,2(Rn), we observe that σ∈F1
1,2(Rn), see e.g. see Proposition 18 or [Tr92, Section 4.3.1].
For eachz0∈Γ, there existsǫz0 >0 such that we can find a cutoff functionθz0 ∈Cc∞(U(z0))
for which θz0 ≡1 within ǫz0U(z0) and
X |α|≤2
kDαθz0kL∞(Rn) ≤M
for some fixed universal constantM >1 independent of z0. By multiplying this cutoff function
θz0, we have that ρ = θz0σ ∈ F11,2(Rn) and kρkF1
1,2(Rn) ≤ M · kσkF1,21 (Rn). Hence we take the
constant ζ above to beǫz0.
By coodinate change, we observe that
Z Ω vU· ∇ρ dx= Z U(z0)∩Ω n X i=1 vi ∂ ∂xi ρ dx= Z V∩Rn + n X j=1 wUj(y)J(y) ∂ ∂yj ρ◦ψ(y)dy.
The n-th component equals
Z V∩Rn + wUn(y)J(y) ∂ ∂yn ρ◦ψ(y) dy = Z V wUn(y)J(y) ∂ ∂yn ρ◦ψ(y) dy
since wUn equals zero for yn < 0. Consider extensions of H¨older functions [McS] and local
diffeomorphism [Lew], by the F10,2 −F∞0,2 duality [Sa, Theorem 3.22] and Proposition 17, we conclude that Z V wUn(y)J(y) ∂ ∂yn ρ◦ψ(y) dy ≤ C· n X i=1 kwUnkbmo· kJkCβ(V)· k∂ynψkCβ(V)· k∇ρ◦ψekh1 ≤ C· kwUnkbmo· k∇ρkh1.
For tangential part we may assume that
(ρ◦ψ)(y′, yn) = (ρ◦ψ)(y′,−yn) for yn<0. (19) {{EEVEEV}}
In fact, for a given ρ we take
g(y′, yn) = ρ◦ψ(y′, yn) +ρ◦ψ(y′,−yn)/2 which satisfies evenness g(y′, yn) =g(y′,−yn) and
g(y′,0) =θ◦ψ(y′,0)·σ◦ψ(y′,0) =θ(y′, hz0(y′))·ϕ(y′, hz0(y′)).
It suffices to take ρsuch that ρ◦ψ(y) =g(y). Thus, we may assume thatρ◦ψis even in yn so
that∂yj(ρ◦ψ) is also even inyn forj= 1,2, . . . , n−1. SincewUjJ is even in yn fory inV, we
observe that Z V∩Rn + wUj(y)J(y) ∂ ∂yj ρ◦ψdy = 1 2 Z V wUj(y)J(y) ∂ ∂yj ρ◦ψdy
for 1≤j≤n−1. Similar to the case for the n-th component, we thus conclude that
Z V wUj(y)J(y) ∂ ∂yj(ρ◦ψ)dy ≤C· kwUjkbmo· k∇ρkh1.
Collecting these estimates, we conclude that
Z Γ∩ǫz0U(z0) v·nϕ dxn−1 ≤CkwUkbmok∇ρkh1 ≤Ckvkvbmoµ,ν δ (Ω)kϕkL1(Γ∩ǫz0U(z0)). Thuskv·nkL∞ ≤Ckvkvbmoµ,ν δ (Ω). ✷
Remark 24. (i) Since BM Oµ,νb ⊂ vbmoµ,νδ for δ < ∞, the estimate in Theorem 22 holds if we replace vbmoµ,νδ by BM Oµ,νb . Moreover, since we are able to use zero extension in this case. We can follow the proof of Theorem 22 directly without the necessity to invoke normal coordinates. We shall state a version of Theorem 22 forBM Oµ,νb in the end of this section.
(ii) By Theorem 9 we may replace vbmoµ,νδ by vBM Oµ,ν(Ω) in the estimate in Theorem 22
Then there is a constant C =C(µ, ν, δ,Ω) such that
kv·nkL∞(Γ)≤C·(kvkBM Oµ,ν
b (Ω)+kdivvkLnul(Γδ)) for all v∈BM Oµ,νb (Ω).
Proof. For z0 ∈ Γ, let U(z0) = Ur∗,δ∗,hz0(z0) with δ∗ ≤ R∗. We then follow the proof of
Theorem 22 without invoking the normal coordinates. For v ∈BM Oµ,νb (Ω), let v0 be the zero
extension ofv. We have that v0∈bmo∞∞(U(z0)). Let vU be the Jones’ extension ofrU(z0)v0 by
Theorem 12 where rU(z0)v0 denotes the restriction of v0 on U(z0). For ϕ∈Cc1(Γ∩ 12U(z0)), we
construct the function σ in the same way as in the proof of Theorem 22. Since the boundary Γ is uniformly C1+β, Ψe∗ is a global C1+β-diffeomorphism. By Proposition 18, we have that
σ=eσ◦(Ψe∗)−1 ∈F1
1,2(Rn). Pick θinCc∞(U(z0)) such that θ≡1 within 12U(z0) and letρ=θσ,
we deduce thatρ∈F11,2(Rn) and
Z Ω vU· ∇ρ dx ≤C· kvUkbmo· k∇ρkh1 ≤C· kvkBM Oµ,ν b (Ω)· k∇ρkh1. Therefore, Z Γ∩1 2U(z0) v·nϕ dxn−1 ≤C· kvkBM Oµ,νb (Ω)· kϕkL1(Γ∩12U(z0)).
The proof is therefore complete. ✷
5
Appendix
We shall prove Lemma 23. We first recall a simple property of a matrix.
Proposition 26. Let A be an invertible matrix
A= (~a1, . . . ,~an)
when~aj =t(aij)1≤i≤n is an column vector. Assume that~an is a unit vector and orthogonal to ~aj with 1 ≤ j ≤ n−1. Then n-row vector of A−1 equals t~an. In other words, if one writes A−1 = (bij)1≤i,j≤n, then bnj =ajn for 1≤j ≤n.
Proof. By definition the row vector~b= (bnj)1≤j≤n must satisfies~b·~aj = 0 (j = 1, . . . , n−1), ~b·~an= 1. Since{~aj}jn=1−1 spansRn−1 orthogonal to~an, first identities imply that~bis parallel to ~an. We thus conclude that~b=~an since~b·~an= 1 and |~an|= 1. ✷
Proof of Lemma 23. We recall the explicit representation (16) of the normal coordinate. The Jacobi matrix fromy7−→x is of the form
A= (~a1, . . . ,~an)
with~aj =t δij −yn∂jni(y′, ψ(y′)), ∂jψ(y′)−yn∂jnn(y′, ψ(y′))1≤i≤n−1, 1≤j≤n−1, ~an=−tn y′, ψ(y′) where n=−∇dΩ.
Note that the vector (δij, ∂jψ(y′))1≤i≤n−1is a tangential vector to Γ. Moreover, (∂jn1, . . . , ∂jnn)
is also tangential since ∂jn·n =∂j|n|2/2 = 0. Thus~aj is orthogonal to~an for 1≤j ≤n−1.
The invertibility of A is guaranteed ifyn< R∗. By a chain rule we have
w= n X j=1 ˜ wj(y)(∂/∂yj) = n X i=1 n X j=1 ˜ wj ∂xi ∂yj ∂ ∂xi so that wi(x(y)) = n X j=1 ˜ wj(y)∂xi ∂yj i.e., w=Aw,˜ whereA= (∂xi/∂yj)1≤i,j≤n, ˜w=t( ˜wi, . . . ,w˜n),w=t(w1, . . . , wn). Thus
˜
w=A−1w.
By Proposition 26, the last row ofA−1 equals ∇d Ω.
We thus conclude that ˜wn=∇dΩ·w. This is what we would like to prove. ✷
Acknowledgement
The first author is partly supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science through grants Kiban A (No. 19H00639), Challenging Pioneering Research (Kaitaku) (No. 18H05323), Kiban A (No. 17H01091). The second author is partly supported by the Mizuho international foundation through foreign students scholarship program.
